Texas Supreme Court

The court held that the non-signatory affiliates identified as protected parties in the release and indemnity agreement may enforce its arbitration provision as third-party beneficiaries.

Justice Hawkins concurred in the denial of mandamus, reasoning that Rule 592 appears to authorize preservation of property, not arrest and confinement of a deponent. The concurrence did not resolve whether the trial court relied on Rule 592 because the parties disputed the basis for the order, the writ had expired…

The Court held that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over Conduent’s interlocutory appeal under either statutory provision Conduent invoked. Conduent was not a governmental unit under Section 51.014(a)(8), and a company is not an “individual” whose immunity-based motion supports an appeal under Section…

The Court granted review, vacated the court of appeals’ judgment, and remanded for that court to consider whether an intervening decision affects the parties’ contract dispute. Because the court of appeals had not considered that decision or the parties’ and amici’s arguments about it, the Court expressed no view on…

Justice Busby dissented from the denial of review, reasoning that the contract’s notwithstanding clause may reserve injunctive-relief arbitrability questions for courts despite the incorporation of arbitration rules. He would have granted review to clarify how parties can limit delegation of arbitrability issues.

Justice Lehrmann concurred in the denial of the petition for review and expressly took no position on the merits of Richards’s claim or whether she qualified as a “professional” under the statute.

The Court held that the Pakistani talaq judgment could not receive comity because the five-day notice published in an obscure newspaper was constitutionally inadequate when Husband offered no evidence that ordinary means of contacting Wife were unavailable.

The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus, directing Galveston County to use the precinct maps from the March 2026 primary election for the November 2026 general election, holding that the county lacks authority to alter precinct lines mid‑election and that the relators have standing to seek…

The Texas Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order terminating the children’s parental rights (except for C.L.S.’s rights), vacated the Court of Appeals judgment, dismissed the case, and awarded costs to the petitioner.

The Texas Supreme Court held that the parties’ pole‑attachment agreement incorporates the Public Utility Regulatory Act, so CPS Energy’s discriminatory rates breach the contract; the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings.

The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for review, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a medical‑malpractice claim because the plaintiff failed to serve a compliant expert report within the 120‑day deadline required by the Texas Medical Liability Act.

The Texas Supreme Court held that Section 36.002(2) of the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act requires a showing of materiality for omissions, and therefore affirmed LabCorp’s summary‑judgment victory.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal, holding that Texas Constitution Article I §33(d) bars a private right of enforcement of the beach‑access easement, rendering the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims facially invalid and depriving the court of subject‑matter…

The Texas Supreme Court held that a parent whose untimely notice of appeal resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel may pursue an out‑of‑time appeal, reversed the Court of Appeals judgment, and remanded for a hearing on the ineffective‑assistance claim.

The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, holding that the pending qui tam action survives the relator’s death, that the first‑to‑file bar does not bar the suit, that the public‑disclosure bar does not apply, and that the doctrine of dominant jurisdiction does not require abatement.

The Texas Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by referring the question of Rail Link’s common‑carrier status under FELA to the Surface Transportation Board without a clear statutory grant of jurisdiction.

The Texas Supreme Court held that the meat supplier could not recover on a quantum meruit claim because the transactions were governed by valid express contracts, and consequently could not recover attorney's fees; the Court reversed the appellate judgment in part and entered a take‑nothing judgment for the buyer.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and dismissed the disciplinary proceeding against William W. Ruth, holding that Rule 4.02 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct does not apply to a lawyer who is representing himself pro se.

The Court held that the cities’ suit against the State of Texas could not resolve their dispute over the rates telecom companies must pay, because the State was not shown to be the source of their injury and a judgment against it would not bind the companies.

Justice Sullivan, joined by Justice Young, concurred in the denial of review in five parental-rights termination cases because the statutory errors identified in the orders were not preserved.

The Court held that the parents’ unpreserved challenge to the trial court’s temporary emergency jurisdiction was forfeited because the relevant statutory provision does not concern subject-matter jurisdiction.

Justice Sullivan concurred in the denial of review, reasoning that Mother was not entitled to a mandatory extension because the permanency goal was adoption, and that the record likely did not show the good-faith effort required for the court’s consideration in a substance-abuse case.

Justice Sullivan concurred in the denial of review, reasoning that the district court exceeded the statutory deadline for completing the parental-termination trial but that the deadline was not jurisdictional and mandamus was the only available remedy.

The Court affirms termination of Father’s parental rights but reverses and renders judgment for Mother because the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that termination of her rights was in the children’s best interest.

Justice Young, joined by Justices Devine and Sullivan, explains why the Court reasonably denied the Department’s petition for review: the fractured appellate opinions and sparse trial record made the case a poor vehicle for precedent, while the denial leaves the State responsible for presenting an adequate evidentiary…

Justice Young, joined by Justices Sullivan and Hawkins, concurred in the denial of Mother’s petition for review, focusing on serious uncertainty about whether her petition asserted ineffective assistance or was intended as a no-merit filing.

The Court held that a parent in a termination proceeding may use counsel of her choosing even after the court has appointed an attorney ad litem, and that a public defender’s office may provide that representation when authorized by the county.

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that a plaintiff may reassert claims against a licensed professional dismissed without prejudice under Civ. Prac. & Rem.

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, holding that the forfeiture remedy in Article XVI, Section 50(a)(6)(Q)(x) applies only to breaches of the Constitution’s enumerated obligations, not to every breach of a home‑equity loan agreement.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the substituted service of process was invalid because the Secretary of State did not forward the papers to the entities’ most recent address on file. The Court interpreted the plain meaning of TEX. BUS. ORGS.

The Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court’s possession order violated the jury’s finding on the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence, reversed and remanded that order along with related child‑support and parental‑rights determinations and the appellate‑fee award, and affirmed the…

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the State’s interlocutory appeal and, treating the petition as a writ of mandamus, conditionally granted relief directing the trial court to rule on the Attorney General’s plea to the jurisdiction.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s affirmation of the exemplary‑damages awards, holding that Chapter 41’s cap must be applied based on each defendant’s proportionate share of the reduced economic‑damages award and that the cap applies per defendant, not per plaintiff, and remanded for proper…

The Texas Supreme Court held that Rio Grande Electric Cooperative has an easement by estoppel over the Boerschig ranch but that its 2014 upgrade of the line exceeded the scope of that easement, constituting trespass; it reversed the Court of Appeals, rendered judgment for the petitioner, and remanded for further…

The Texas Supreme Court held that the $25 million supersedeas‑bond cap in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.006(b)(2) applies per judgment debtor, not to the total security posted by all debtors, and it reversed the trial court’s order that invalidated the joint bond without giving the debtors time to cure, directing…

The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Citizens Participation Act applies to the Lilith Fund’s declaratory‑judgment suit because the suit is based on or in response to Weldon’s Rule 202 petition, and therefore reversed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded for the lower court to address the remaining TCPA…

The Court held that Noyes sufficiently preserved his constitutional challenges to the lifetime firearm prohibition and vacated the court of appeals’ judgment because that court decided the challenges without the benefit of the intervening decision in Rahimi.

The Texas Supreme Court denied the Governor’s and Attorney General’s petitions for writs of quo warranto seeking to remove House members who fled the state during a quorum break, holding that the Court will not exercise discretionary jurisdiction because the political mechanisms provided by the Constitution resolved…

The Texas Supreme Court denied Nelda Johnson’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Department of State Health Services to correct her son’s death certificate. The Court, joined by Justices Devine and Busby, concluded that Johnson lacked standing and that sovereign immunity barred her claim, directing…

The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to dismiss the negligence claims against Home Depot because Texas law does not impose a duty of care on a passive shipper.